Monday, 19 October 2015

Four Imp Verdicts On Core Issues

Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

S. 32: Even prior to the insertion of "intangible assets" in s. 32, intellectual property rights such as trademarks, copyrights and know-how constitute "plant" for purposes of depreciation. The department is not entitled to rewrite the terms of a commercial agreement

The question is, would intellectual property such as trademarks, copyrights and know-how come within the definition of ‘plant’ in the ‘sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing, would attribute to it’? In our opinion, this must be answered in the affirmative for the reason that there can be no doubt that for the purposes of a large business, control over intellectual property rights such as brand name, trademark etc. are absolutely necessary. Moreover, the acquisition of such rights and know-how is acquisition of a capital nature, more particularly in the case of the Assessee. Therefore, it cannot be doubted that so far as the Assessee is concerned, the trademarks, copyrights and know-how acquired by it would come within the definition of ‘plant’ being commercially necessary and essential as understood by those dealing with direct taxes


Pr. CIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd (Delhi High Court)

S. 147: Reopening only on the basis of information received that the assessee has introduced unaccounted money in the form of accommodation entries without showing in what manner the AO applied independent mind to the information renders the reopening void

Without forming a prima facie opinion, on the basis of such material, it was not possible for the AO to have simply concluded: “it is evident that the assessee company has introduced its own unaccounted money in its bank by way of accommodation entries”. In the considered view of the Court, in light of the law explained with sufficient clarity by the Supreme Court in the decisions discussed hereinbefore, the basic requirement that the AO must apply his mind to the materials in order to have reasons to believe that the income of the Assessee escaped assessment is missing in the present case


Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

S. 263: Claim that notional interest on funds placed by the s. 10A eligible unit with the H.O. is allowable as a deduction to the H.O. and is exempt in the hands of the s. 10A unit is an “unsustainable view” justifying revision action

The Assessee has not derived any interest income. Therefore, reducing such notional income – which has neither been accrued nor received – from the Assessee’s total income is completely alien to the scheme of the Act. Such notional interest could never form a part of the Assessee’s income and thus the Assessee’s claim that the same is to be excluded under Section 10A of the Act is flawed and wholly unsustainable in law. The view as canvassed on behalf of the Assessee is not, even remotely, plausible


Alabra Shipping Pte Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Rajkot)

Law on applicability of Article 24 of the India-Singapore DTAA (Limitation of Benefits) to a case where the income is not remitted to, or received in Singapore, explained

The benefit of treaty protection is restricted to the amount of income which is eventually subject matter of taxation in the source country. This is all the more relevant for the reason that in a situation in which territorial method of taxation is followed by a tax jurisdiction and the taxability for income from activities carried out outside the home jurisdiction is restricted to the income repatriated to such tax jurisdiction, as in the case of Singapore, the treaty protection must remain confined to the amount which is actually subjected to tax. Any other approach could result in a situation in which an income, which is not subject matter of taxation in the residence jurisdiction, will anyway be available for treaty protection in the source country

No comments: